Law and Liberty

Saturday, May 21, 2016

When Pontius Pilate (fifth prefect of the Roman province of
Judaea from AD 26– 36) was confronted with the problem of Jesus (approx. 33 AD)
he was in the midst of political turmoil. History does not credit Pilate as a
man having good character, and because of that, he was in conflict both with
the Jews over whom he was governor, and also with Rome, to whom he answered
politically.

The thing about Pilate with which we are most familiar is
that, finding no fault with Jesus (no legal reason to conduct further
proceedings) he sought to placate the Jewish leaders who we stirring the
political pot, causing Pilate trouble in Jerusalem, and in Rome. According the
Gospels, Pilate decided to give the complainers a choice: the customary release
of one prisoner of their choosing during the Passover festival. They could
choose Barabbas, or Jesus. (Matthew 27: 11-26)

It is more than merely interesting that Barabbas’ first name
was also Jesus. Some ancient Syriac copies of Matthew, and a few other ancient
sources, call the freed prisoner "Jesus bar Abbas" (http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/barabbas.html).
Here we have a case of alternatives. A choice between truth and not truth-
between Jesus and not Jesus- a choice involving integrity and political
expediency.

We know a little about Pontius Pilate from source outside of
scripture, and his brief appearance is full of tragedy. He ignored his
conscience, he disregarded the good advice of his wife, he chose political
expediency over public rectitude, and he failed to recognize the truth even
when Truth was standing right in front of him. (gotquestions.org)Pilate’s life was defined by compromise, and
in the end (sources vary), he either committed suicide or was killed by Nero.

Times may change but human nature does not. Today, there are
loud voices demanding compromise.People, well-meaning perhaps, who cry out that if we do not choose this
one over that one (presidential candidates), we are doomed. The reality is that
if we choose “not truth” over Truth, we are doomed anyway. When integrity is all you have, you should
never gamble what you cannot afford to lose.

A problem that is caused by compromise cannot be solved by
more compromise. Always seek righteousness.Always choose truth.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

What is a "law-abiding" citizen?In logic, there is something called an unstated assumption (or premise). If you structure a logical argument and you reach a supportable conclusion, you can still be wrong because there elements to consider that are not mentioned. For example:(a) premise: my mother is my parent(b) premise: my father is my parent(c) conclusion: my mother is my father.This is logically supportable but factually incorrect. Why? Because of the unstated assumption that we have two parents.

A law abiding citizen is one who abides by the laws. But there is a presumption that the law is good and that the process of law is legitimate and uniformly enforced. This results in what we call "The Rule of Law". But what do you call person who recognizes that either the process of law, or the enforcement of law, is corrupted? If that person does not obey that law, is he no longer a "law-abiding" citizen? The law is not subject to "private interpretation" but neither is the law subject to government "interpretation" outside of the legitimate legislative process. At least that is true if we are still a "nation of laws" and the historically-respected "rule of law" is followed.

If a nation's leaders become lawless, and impose upon the citizens commandments that they created out of thin air, violative of the process of law, then according to our founding principles, the "law-abiding" citizen is the one who opposes those leaders and disobeys their arbitrary "laws".

Jefferson penned in the Declaration these words, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Some things never change. History will judge us, as it judged our forefathers, whether our respect for law and the rule of law will oppose the lawless government that seeks to destroy our foundations.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

I see these terms on social media in the form of an assertion of some truth. A web site holds itself forth as a "news" source and it "reports" news that is designed to ignite (or fan the flames of) passion. Often these "news" items are repackaged tidbits from other "news" sites of varying degrees of credibility (or incredibility).

Then, in the spirit of the game, another "news" pundit (of equally questionable integrity or reliability) will "debunk" the original "bunk" by accusing the original source(s) of being biased or outright lying. There is much caterwauling and beating of the chest, but usually very little (if any) actual facts offered as contrary evidence.

Frankly, it's exhausting. Is there any such thing anymore as "honest" (in the intellectual as well as the moral sense) news outlet today?

Recently (for example), in the "discussion" leading up to the Iran "deal", we got very conflicting information from Russian and Israeli sources that contradicted U.S. sources (or offered glimpses into the details that were notably absent from U.S. reporting). It appears, in retrospect, that the ONLY reliable information available to the U.S. citizen was that which originated from either Russia or Israel.

I apologize in advance for anything I post that proves ultimately untrue. Like I said, it is exhausting trying to verify anything these days. Deception is the order of the day.

For what it's worth...Mat 24:24 tells us to be very alert in "The Last Days", “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

The mind (reason) is far superior to passion (emotion) in determining what is true, but ultimately all truth is spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Another translation says it this way " A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the teachings of God's Spirit. He thinks they're nonsense. He can't understand them because a person must be spiritual to evaluate them."

Whether or not these are the "Last Days" (I believe that they are) it seems pretty clear that with so much deception and so much "...spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph 6:10) that our reason alone is insufficient to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." God help us.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

I was listening to a radio show today (Dec 8, 2015) and people
were calling in to answer the question of whether we should ban Christmas
parties.This is following the
shooting of 14 people at an office Christmas party by a Muslim man and his wife
in San Bernadino, CA this week. Discussion ranged from whether the U.S. should ban
Christmas, (because it offends Muslims) or just ban the office parties, or just
call it a “holiday celebration”, etc.

It’s Christmas.Christ + Mass.Its about the
birth of the baby Jesus. It is a
celebration that is ancient in history and universal in scope. Nearly everybody
on the planet that knows ABOUT Christmas, celebrates it, even if they do NOT
believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God in the person of the Messiah. Believe it or not, but it is the "reason for the season". It's a good reason to party.It’s like: if your neighbors have a new baby
and they are so happy that they invite all of the other neighbors over to celebrate
the event,you go to see them being
happy.Its not YOUR baby, and you might
not even care about babies, but you’re a good neighbor so you pop in long
enough to say congratulations, drink some punch and maybe eat a snack or
two. Heck, you might not even really LIKE your neighbors but sometimes we participate in social activities because that is what civilized people do. No SANE person would try to take
over the party, tell the new mom what she can, and cannot serve to eat or drink
at her party, or that you disapprove of someone else who showed up to the celebration.If any of that bothers you that much, then
you politely decline the invitation and you go do whatever you were gonna do
anyway.Rarely will anybody care what
you do nor will they genuinely feel badly that you did not attend.

Many Muslims though, Such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernadinl shooters DEMAND that the rest of the world stop what we’ve been
doing for two thousand years.Muslims such
as those who perpetrated the San Bernadino massacre are offended that our traditions
are contrary to their traditions, and so, like any other self-centered,
self-righteous, arrogant bigot, they demand everyone else bend to THEIR
will.But taking at yet another step
further than the “run-of-the-mill arrogant bigot,Islamists (correctly) hold that the doctrines of Islam instruct the truly faithful to KILL
them if they do not change their traditions if those traditions are exactly
what is taught by their “religion” because that is exactly what Muhammad would
have done. (I put religion in quotes because careful study will reveal that Islam is primarily a complete system of total social and cultural control and is therefor a political system with a religious cloak)

It’s CHRISTMAS.Yes, it
is a CHRISTIAN holiday, but the gift of Jesus is for ALL men. If you don’t
believe in Jesus, or you reject His claim as the Messiah, you are still welcome
to come to the party.We WANT you to
come. Celebrate with us. Share our joy, be a part of our moment, even if you don’t
believe.We are INCLUSIVE that way.

Fact: The VPC asserts that “When analyzing the most reliable
data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300
million guns (Their source estimates 310 million), how rarely firearms are used
in self-defense.”

(In 2012, 8,342 criminal gun homicides were recorded by the
FBI.8,342 divided by 310 million = 0.0000269097. What “strikes” me is that this is a
number so low as to be statistically irrelevant).

The NCVP researchers ask this: “While it is clear that guns
are rarely used to justifiably kill criminals, an obvious question remains: How
often are guns used in self-defense whether or not a criminal is killed”

“…for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS (National
Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) estimates
that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime.
During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective
behaviors involved a firearm.

(29,618 divided by 235,700 = 7.957% over five years. Eight %
is approximately 103,000 people who DID NOT become victims during the reporting
period because of having a firearm available. Apparently this 8% of intended
victims of violence do not matter to the Violence Policy Center. Instead they
are agitated over the claim by pro-gun advocates that the number is higher.)

In “… the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS
estimates that there were 84,495,500 victims of attempted or completed property
crime.

During this same five-year period, only 103,000 of the
self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known
what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use
of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And as before,
the number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison,
data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were
stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010.

(84.5 million property crimes were either attempted or
completed in this five year period – an average of 169,000/year.Note that this “analysis” contains a fair bit
of speculation on the part of the NCVP. They do not know how many crimes were “completed”
so they cannot know how many “attempted” crimes were thwarted by armed property
owners. Since property crimes can happen inside of, or outside of, the home,
the legality of using deadly force or the threat of deadly force is unknown. Therefore
this piece of information is useless to any “analysis”.)

(It is completely valid to be concerned with 232,400 guns
being stolen each year [0.00075% of all estimated firearms], but that is
different problem, requiring a different solution. Furthermore, there does not
appear any research was done as to how many of those 232,400 guns are
subsequently used in violent crimes, which WOULD be an important piece of
information, particularly for an organization whose interest is in violence
prevention. )

CONCLUSION of the NCVP:“The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the
exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry.”(OK. And this important, why?) Further, “…in 35.5 percent of the justifiable
homicides that occurred in 2012 the persons shot were known to the shooter.” (Not sure why this is relevant to the
discussion. A threat is a threat regardless of whether the victim knows the
perpetrator, or in what context.)

“The devastation
guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: more than 33,000 dead,
more than 81,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives traumatized…”(It is interesting to me that these figures
are NOT footnoted.There is no citation
provided to check these numbers.But
assuming they are accurate, they do not constitute evidence to prove their
assertion.They are just “out there”
and the reader is left to form his/her own conclusions. Logically, the number
of all people killed by firearms in the United Stated per year would be people
who were (1) unarmed victims of crime, (1) armed perpetrators of crime, or (3)
suicides. Intuitively, the vast majority
of those killed by firearms are people who were using firearms illegally. (i.e.
criminals killing other criminals as in gangland shootings, shootouts with
police, etc.. Hardly useful information if the purpose to hinder lawful gun
ownership. Further, the VPC clearly is more compassionate towards criminals
than towards the citizens who use firearms to protect themselves.)

“When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely
firearms are used in self-defense.” (Besides being irrelevant if offered in
support of gun control, this fact, actually tends to support the conclusion
that private ownership of firearms is more safe than a whole range of other
lawful, but more deadly, liberties. It is possible-even logical- to conclude
therefore that if MORE people had firearms in their possession at the time of
the attempted crime, more lives would be saved and crime would be REDUCED! Instead, this organization is focused on the
claims that MORE incidents of crime were prevented by firearms than may
actually be the case. Again, I’m not quite sure why THAT is their focus when
their organizations stated purpose is the prevention of unnecessary violence
and death.

For example, in 2012, the same year from which NCVP draws
their statistics, there were 254 million automobiles registered in the U.S. In
that same year there were 33,561 automobile
fatalities.I’ll not even discuss the “…untold
number of lives traumatized…” by being injured in an auto accident, nor shall I
speculate on the numbers of unregistered cars on the road which may, or may
not, have been involved in accidents.Statistically speaking, the number of fatalities compared to the number
of vehicles registered is about 0.00013213 %, or roughly TEN TIMES the numbers
of fatalities compared to guns and gun-related violence in the U.S.. Further,
there are apparently no statistics available for how many automobiles were used
for self-defense so there is no way to compare the number of lives saved to the
number of lives lost for that particular “dangerous” activity. Since that
number is likely very low, the “self-defense value” of a firearm exceeds that
of the much more dangerous automobile a hundred-fold or more.)

MY conclusion:The NCVP
seems unjustifiably antagonistic towards the private ownership of firearms and
the use thereof to protect lives and property, and the overall reduction of
crime. Their research is incomplete, and their analysis is flawed.It seems clear that they are agenda-driven
rather than research driven. Methinks they should change their name to one that
more accurately expresses their agenda.

Monday, June 8, 2015

I awakened from the dream, knowing it was just a dream but
feeling the intensity of the emotion that it produced in me. I was a policeman
again, in a small office, in a small town with a couple of other officers when
three people came in. They were strangers in town and as it turns out, they
were activist/actors, on a mission to challenge law enforcement and to prove
that police were enemies of freedom.They had a story and each actor played their roles well.I don’t remember what the pitch was, but in
my dream, I recognized the play early in the performance and I, and the other
officers, were on guard. Other law
enforcement professionals recognize the phenomenon; your mind is suddenly on
alert from some subtle cue, and suddenly “things just don’t seem right”.It’s hard to explain to the inexperienced,
but it is a kind of intuition that operates deep in the subconscious. For the
police, your life depends on this intuition.

The story told by the visitors was intended to cause the police
to overreact and their plan was each of the “players” would be then be “mistreated”
in some way that would engender sympathy and support for their “cause”. With a
clarity not often present in dreams, I saw that each of these (two men and a
woman) had a different view of just exactly where the line is drawn between
civil order and individual freedom, but they all agreed that the status quo was
too “extreme” in favor of social order and, in their view, too “hostile” to
individual liberty.

The details of the “play” are a bit fuzzy now, and probably
unimportant anyway, but as I lay in the pre-dawn darkness, I was keenly aware
that this dream reflected a deep truth that reflects a present reality in our
culture. There are people who understand
and adapt to the notion that some individual freedom is voluntarily placed in
subordination to maintain civil order based upon shared values. There are
people who believe that the system favors order at the expense of liberty (in
varying degrees). Then, there are those on the other hand who believe that
excessive focus on liberty has threatened, and is destroying order (also, in
varying degrees). The “activists” occupy the fringes at both ends of the
spectrum. The three activists in my dream all felt that social order was
oppressive and that the freedoms of the individual were insufficiently
appreciated. I remember knowing in my dream that these actors did not all agree
as to what a “perfect” society would look like but that their “mission” in life
was to promote their view that police were the visible manifestation of all
that was wrong with our government and our system of laws.

The dream played out with all three being arrested (which
they intended) but in a different manner, and for different reasons than they
had planned. The other officers and myself conducted ourselves in a manner that
was completely unexpected by our “visitors” (as would happen when prior intel
would permit the officers to inject an element not foreseen by the antagonists).
Following some “dream-world drama”, and one of them nearly being killed in a “resist
arrest” move, all three were “unarrested” after being “schooled” on philosophy
and law. Some of my former students will nod knowingly, because they apprehend
that this is “how I roll”. Even in my dreams (some might argue ONLY in my
dreams) I am still “the professor”.

In my dream, as in real life, the failed “plan” of the activists,
and the subsequent manner of arrest, and the fact that one of them was almost
killed in the process, had unintended consequences.The experience resulted in one of the actors
having a complete change of heart and mind, the second one being seriously
intellectually challenged as to his underlying philosophy, and the third one
only hardening his heart and steeling his resolve to destroy the system; One “win” for the good guys, one “loss”, and
one “maybe”.

As I lay there deciding whether to get up or try to squeeze in
anotherhour of sleep, another recent
memory came to mind that seemed to illustrate and underscore the philosophical content
of the dream, and convince me to get up and write these thoughts down on paper.
A couple of days earlier, I was on Watts Bar Lake in my 28’ sailboat with my
good friend, a retired NYPD officer.Eddie was at the helm as we motored back to the marina (the wind was
calm so there was no sailing back) and I was viewing the distant shoreline
through powerful binoculars. If I rested my elbows on the cabin roof, the
vibration of the engine and movement of the boat on the water distorted my
distant vision. Trying to eliminate all movement of my body by resting solidly
on the boat only transmitted the minor (but distinct) movements to the
binoculars, and as a consequence, the image of the far shore was too blurry to
be useful.But… if I stood steady on the
deck, and let my brain allow my body to compensate for the movement of the
boat, and absorb the vibration of the engine, then I was able to view distant
objects with clarity. My body became the “buffer” between the dynamics of the
boat moving through the water, and the static shoreline.

I think that the balance of order and liberty is like that. The
“boat” is the firm foundation of the law, rooted in history, tradition,
philosophy, and morality, and validated by the commitment of “we the people” to
that morality and our traditions.But
history shows that even in the best of times, there are minor imperfections,
and “vibrations” that are systemic. That is the “lake” that is life. It is
dynamic, fluid, and powerful.We try to
navigate through the waters of life towards some distant objective that we know
is there but that we cannot clearly see because of the instability of our
situation.We need a system to provide
some steady, predictable, mechanism to get us over, across, and through, the
waters but unless we are all “on board” we will not reach the destination. As
individuals, we must remain flexible, and “give” a little to the demands of the
water, and the realities of the boat, to get the clearest vision possible for the
future safety and security for all.The
solution for clearer vision, and a safer journey is NOT to get out of (or to
destroy) the boat!

In my dream, those three visitors saw “the boat” (the system
of laws and government) as the natural enemy of individual liberty. The police
were the visible representation of all that was wrong, and “oppressive” about
the system. The visitors wanted to destroy the system in order to arrive at the
same far distant shore as everybody else, but without the confining structure
and limitations that the system inevitably requires. In the words of president
Dwight D. Eisenhower, "A people that values its privileges above its
principles soon loses both." Fundamental principles of liberty are
balanced by fundamental principles of duty.The system that was created and which we have struggled to maintain, is a
balance between the maximum amount of individual liberty that can be achieved
at the same time as the maximum amount of tolerance that must be extended to
the “vibrations” of our civic duties and responsibilities. In the words of esteemed
commentator and author Dr. Thomas Sowell, “"Tolerating imperfections is
the price of freedom."

The media in the last few months has carried a number of
stories of conflict between members of the public and the police, with whom
some citizens feel a strong sense of anger and fear. The police likewise feel a
sense of anger and fear at those citizens because we are caught in a classic “values
conflict”.The media capitalizes on the
fear and anger by refusing (in many cases) to be “fair and balanced” in their
presentation of the news. The result has been several police officers, and
several citizens killed. In at least one recent case, it seems clear that there
was an example of misuse of police authority and a blatant abuse of power.In other cases, careful review has shown that
the citizens acted in frenzied fury and out of (calculated?) misrepresentation
of the facts. The issue for everyone is whether, or to the extent, that the
machinery of government (the system) has pushed so hard for social order that it
has lost all tolerance for the individual rights of the community. The “balance”
between social order and individual freedom has been seriously compromised in
some communities. The great danger is that such a condition, if handled poorly,
will escalate to a national problem.Every
time the issue is approached from passion rather than reason, the players
resemble those in my dream: someone with a personal “axe to grind” whose notions
of individual liberty trump the necessity of lawful order. I fear that without
wise leadership, and a deeper understanding of, and appreciation for, the
dynamic tension between order and liberty, we will lose both. The “activists”
need to acquiesce to the ruling of the majority as to our national (historic) values
and the limitations of our tolerance of disorder.

About Me

I am a former U.S. Army Officer, and former Police Officer, Formerly the Regional Coordinator for Homeland Security (TN), and now a College Professor.. I teach courses in Law, American Government, Policy, and Criminal Justice for Liberty University (Lynchburg,VA) Bryan College (Dayton, TN) and King University Satellite campus in Knoxville, TN). I hold a Master's in Public Policy and Doctorate in Jurisprudence. I love God, I love America, and I love my wife.